Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The poorly-written game law passed in Oklahoma - and subsequently found unconstitutional by the courts - has now been permanently enjoined from existing. This has been a pet project of Governor Brad Henry, and this enjoinment will stop the law from rearing its head again. "The law sought to ban the dissemination to minors of any computer or video game that contains any depiction of "inappropriate violence," which was defined by depictions that fall into any one of nine broad categories. Violators would also have been subject to fines of up to $1,000 ...It also seems in some way that the law singled out the game industry, since according to the court decision, the law was found to be underinclusive - meaning that a minor might be prevented from buying a video game with 'inappropriate violence' but may still legally buy or rent the book or movie on which the game was based." GamePolitics has reaction to this decision.

That's different then. But I'm honestly not surprised. I don't look at mainstream news much but when I do I hardly every see any thing about what music/game/DRM laws are being passed. On the rare occasion that I do they tend to be a total joke.

As an okie (person who lives in oklahoma), i'm always happy to see shit like this.

No state is perfect, and there are always morons and imbeciles, especially here in the bible belt, but oklahoma has always been a relatively common sense area of the union in this fucked up little world.

I'd almost say part of it is because we're on the edge of the bible belt. People around here are smart enough to know not to be morons with their religions, but also old fashioned enough to realize that PARENTING is done by the PARENT. And people who bitch otherwise are usually just lazy.

You must have grown up in Oklahoma and not know any better because everything you said it wrong. Oklahoma is the buckle of the bible belt, they did not want the lottery/tattoos here because of all the bible huggers. Open your eyes, I am suprised that this law did not pass here.

Actually the reason i can say that is because i've seen to and talked with people in the rest of the bible belt, and have friends in some of the other states, and on the whole, oklahoma isn't quite as extreme as some of the other bible belt areas.Not to say we don't have our fruitcakes, we got plenty. It's just they are balanced by a higher percentage of rational educated people who care enough to use their voice and their time to make sure that the legislation does something in accordance with their wishe

I found the the use of the word "permanent" more troubling. Nothing in law is permanent, everything can be changed. That's why it takes eternal vigilance to make sure the laws aren't rewritten to hurt you.

There are too many bad parents buying their young kids ridiculously violent games, and kids doing the same with their parents' money. This law is for the idiots who think that because something goes in a Playstation, it's fine for a kid to play. Unfortunately, the government would not have to be involved if these hillbillies would educate themselves (or even sit down and watch a kid play GTA for a few minutes).

If these hillbillies, as you put it, are so irresponsible that they require government intervention to replace parenting, then I think giving a kid "free reign" with a Playstation shouldn't be their top priority in the first place ^_^

the law was found to be underinclusive - meaning that a minor might be prevented from buying a video game with 'inappropriate violence' but may still legally buy or rent the book or movie on which the game was based.

Is it just me or does their reason sound like they want to extend the law to hit books and movies too?

They might, but books and movies are clearly under protection of the First Amendment, and I would almost guarantee that any member of the assembly that tries would get laughed out of office. Quite a few books from the official reading list in my high school would get a big fat "M" or "R" sticker as games or movies.

IAALBNYL (ATINLA)*--
In civil rights cases that challenge the legitimacy of a statute, courts often apply an overinclusive/underinclusive analysis to determine whether the State's claimed reason for a statute is legitimate (whether it's legitimate and whether the reason is sufficient depends on the kind of right involved).
In this case, the purpose of the law was to prevent minors from being exposed to "inappropriate violence." What the court is saying by calling the law underinclusive is "if you want to

Every time these stories about videogame laws come up someone asks what is wrong with having laws like this.

Here are the problems:The first amendment guarantees freedom of expression. That freedom applies to all media. To override the First Amendment would take a lot of evidence.

In the USA no other medium has its ratings enforced by the government. Not the music industry, not the comic book industry, not the internet, not tv, and not the film industry. The MPAA ratings are self-enforced. If someone under 17 isn't allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult it is because the movie industry is inforcing those rules, not the government.

Therefore, if the videogame industry were to be singled out as the only medium to have its ratings enforced by the government there would have to be a mountain of evidence suggesting that violent videogames were harmful to minors. No such mountain exists. As such, these laws are misguided at best and hollow attempts on the part of politicians to appear "pro-family" at worst.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of expression. That freedom applies to all media. To override the First Amendment would take a lot of evidence.

Yes it guarantees freedom of expression, it does NOT however guarantee access what is being expressed. It also does NOT,. guarantee that everything that is expressed will be heard,seen or accessed. Under the law that was in place, the game companies were still able to write (express) anything

Boy you are asking me to stick my neck out. Children are exposed to too much too early. Parents should be protecting the innocence of their children for as long as possible and teach them to respect other people. You don't even have to go back 100 years, when young children and even teenagers called adults by Mr. and Mrs., and if you told them to please get out of your yard, or to move along to keep them from loitering, they said yes sir or ma'am and got out of the yard and moved on instead of f*** you an

You're serious?While I wasn't alive 100 years ago, the kids of today have exactly zero fear of anything because parents are unwilling (or unable) to punish their kids. I know of a kid who doesn't go to school periodically because he doesn't feel like it. His parents try to punish him? How? They have to work, and so short of taking him to work, they have exactly zero control of what he does during the day. They could theoretically disconnect internet access and disconnect cable at home, but then they're

What amazes me is that 47 lawmakers can unanimously pass a blatantly unconstitutional bill. When the courts have to fix what that many politicians unanimously messed up, it's obvious and undeniable proof that the current method of government just does not work.

What amazes me is that 47 lawmakers can unanimously pass a blatantly unconstitutional bill. When the courts have to fix what that many politicians unanimously messed up, it's obvious and undeniable proof that the current method of government just does not work.

On the flip side, 47 lawmakers will use this at the next election, and talk about how they vote to protect the children. It all comes down to politics.

"I do have a cause though. It is: obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it, owing to the nature of the laws, as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on. But we know what's really involved: Dirty books are fun! That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in the court and say that, I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure. A right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution, unfortunately." -To